Skip to main content
Log in

Three-Port Versus Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Since the first laparoscopic cholecystectomy was reported, the four-trocar laparoscope has become the golden standard procedure. Some surgeons, however, thought that the three-port technique may be safe, effective, and economic. Our meta-analysis compared the three-port technique to the four-port technique.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Quality assessment and data extraction were done by two reviewers independently. The statistical analysis was performed by RevMan4.2.10 software.

Results

A total of five publications comprising 591 patients met the inclusion criteria. The result showed that three-port technique could not reduce the analgesia requirements: the sample mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were –0.28 (–0.66, 0.10). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of operating time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 2.08, 95% CI (–3.63, 7.79)], success rate [odds ratio (OR) = 0.99,95% CI (0.31, 3.12)], or postoperative hospital stay [OR = –0.52,95% CI (–1.22, 0.17)].

Conclusions

The current evidence showed that the two groups had similar operating times, success rates, analgesia requirements, and postoperative hospital stays. The methodological qualities of studies are not high, so more high-quality studies are needed for further analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dubois F, Icard P, Berthelot G et al (1990) Coelioscopic cholecystectomy: premilary report of 36 cases. Ann Surg 211:60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Litynski GS (1999) Profiles in laparoscopy: Mouret, Dubois, and Perissat—the laparoscopic breakthrough in Europe (1987–1988). JSLS 3:163

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cerci C, Tarhan OR, Barut I et al (2007) Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 54:15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Welter FH (2006) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy—a never-ending success story? MMW Fortschr Med 148:38

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kalloo A, Kantsevoy S (2001) Gallstones and biliary diseases. Primary Care 28:591–606

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nathanson LK, Shimi S, Cushchieri A (1991) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the Dundee technique. Br J Surg 78:155

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Olsen DO (1991) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 161:339

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Trichak S (2003) Three-port vs standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 17:1434–1436

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Novitsky YW, Kercher KW, Czerniach DR et al (2005) Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 140:1178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kumar M, Agrawal CS, Gupta RK (2007) Three-port versus standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled clinical trial in a community-based teaching hospital in eastern Nepal. JSLS 11:358

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Slim K, Pezet D, Stencl J Jr et al (1995) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an original three-trocar technique. World J Surg 19:394

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Osborne D, Boe B, Rosemurgy AS et al (2005) Twenty-millimeter laparoscopic cholecystectomy: fewer ports results in less pain, shorter hospitalization, and faster recovery. Am Surg 71:298

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Leggett PL, Bissell CD, Churchman-Winn R et al (2001) Three-port microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy in 159 patients. Surg Endosc 15:293

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Collaboration TC (2006) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 4.2.6. The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gupta A, Shrivastava UK, Kumar P et al (2005) Minilaparoscopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial. Trop Gastroenterol 26:149

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hu MQ, Song XJ, Jiang CW et al (2005) Clinical application and study on three-port-looping laparoscopic cholecystectomy. China J Endosc 11:552

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ng WT (1998) Three-trocar laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a cautionary note. Surg Laparosc Endosc 8:159

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the co-authors and all of the other authors, who have contributed significantly.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kehu Yang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sun, S., Yang, K., Gao, M. et al. Three-Port Versus Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. World J Surg 33, 1904–1908 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0108-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0108-1

Keywords

Navigation